His place of birth was challenged and the IAC admitted it:
Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senatorcurrently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .” Appellants‟ Appendix at 11-12, 16-18.The Georgia judge used Ankeny (maybe his eyes were blurred from listening to birthers) to show that another state court, faced with the same question, concluded that there was no constitutional requirement to have two citizen parents.
The Ankeny court had no actual legal precedent to support this. They said the only legal precedent was based indeed on having two citizen parents.
Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. 12
- - -
12 Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Do you understand what this says?? By claiming Minor left open the question for those born to alien parents, this means the only question that was answered is related to BOTH parents being citizens ... which acknowledges that the only recognized definition of NBC is based on being born in the country to two citizen parents. Everything from here forward is based on spinning dicta in a way that is NOT supported by a pronouncement of another court. The question supposedly left open by Minor was also left open by Wong Kim Ark, because the IAC admits:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
This is odd. The lack of a legal precedent is "immaterial"????? It's not immaterial. The part that is immaterial is the IAC's conclusion that anyone can be a natural-born citizen simply by being born on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court NEVER made this conclusion ... and they admitted it.
It's funny that you cite the passage from this court where they downplay original intent from the authors of the 14th amendment, and Vattel (who is cited frequently by the SCOTUS) is just "an eighteenth century treatise." Then the IAC says these authorities conflict with the SCOTUS's interpretation of NBC. This is simply a lie, one which they helped prove otherwise in their citation of Minor ... the one and only legal precedent for an NBC definition.
The section you cited in Ankeny applied to McCain - they argued he was born outside of the US. For Obama, they argued his father made him ineligible. But then, reading isn’t your strong point.
“By claiming Minor left open the question for those born to alien parents, this means the only question that was answered is related to BOTH parents being citizens ..”
When a court leaves something open, that means they do not try to decide it.
“The lack of a legal precedent is “immaterial”?????”
No, they were saying WKA was not a binding ruling forcing them to say Obama was a NBC. Instead, they said the argument was persuasive. And yes, the DICTA in WKA has been extremely influential in all citizenship cases decided since.
You do realize - or maybe not - that the ruling in Minor was simply “A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to “male citizens of the United States,” is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.”
Everything else in Minor is ALSO dicta.
How can it be considered the definitive definition of NBC when there are two other parent combinations it NEVER addresses? It neither accepted or rejected the notion that only one or no citizen parents could produce a NBC.
So now we have case post Minor where those other parent combinations have been addressed.
Can you show where Vattel is extensively cited by the SC in citizenship cases? I would certainly expect to see a lot of Vattel in international law cases - that was his recognized expertise during his life time after all.